Thursday, April 14, 2016

More Comments From Readers – Part IV

Here are some additional
comments and questions from readers of this blog:Comment
#1: "I have heard that in the Peruvian Andes which you write a lot about,
there are only two basic ancient languages, like in the Book of Mormon, while
in Mesoamerica, there are a lot of unrelated languages. Is that correct?”
Ginger W.Response: Yes, that
is correct. We have always found it interesting that before the arrival of the
Spanish in Mesoamerica, there were ten major languages (plus each language had
numerous dialects) being spoken in Mesoamerica: Uto-Aztecan; Mayan;
Isolates; Tequistlatecan; Misumalpan; Oto-Manguean; Mixe-Zoquean; Totonacan;
Jicaque; and Chibehan Bizm (one of
the major reasons Mesoamericanists claim so vociferously that there were other
people in the Land of Promise concurrent with Lehi.)

I=Central Quechua, spoken in six Ecuadorian northern
areas; II=A, B, and C, spoken in both northern and southern Peru, as well as
western Bolivia and northern Chile as shown today; initially it was spoken
everywhere on the map with the exception of around Titicaca and southward On the other hand, prior to the arrival of the Spanish, there were just
two basic and closely related languages in the Peruvian Andes: Aymara and
Quechua. It is interesting that in the Book of Mormon, we know of only
two closely related languages: Nephite (Hebrew) and Lamanite (corrupted Hebrew language),
the latter people having to be retaught the Nephite language around 100 B.C.
(and not all of the Lamanites throughout the Land of Lehi, but those in the
vicinity of the original Land of Nephi). Of the four languages mentioned in the entire Book of Mormon: 1.
Jaredite; 2. Nephite-Hebrew; 3. Mulekite-Hebrew corrupted; and 4:
Lamanite-Hebrew corrupted, the Jaredite language was never taught to anyone
else according to the scriptural record. Coriantumr, the last Jaredite, could
not be understood by the Mulekites, with whom he lived the last nine months of
his life and had to write on a rock his history that was later interpreted by
Mosiah. So of the other three, all were Hebrew based, and we have no record
that the Mulekite language persisted past the time of their merger with the
Nephites around 200 B.C. Quechua, the language of the Inca, dates back to early
B.C. times and remains a fundamental language in present-day Peru, and most
notably in the remote, yet still reasonably well-populated Andean regions, and
spoken in its dialects throughout the entire continent in every country of
South America.Despite the language dating back to earliest inhabited times of the
Andean regions, and having been monitored over the past 500 years since the
Spanish arrived, the language has changed little, even without a written base. However,
given that the language is based on a tangible art form rather than a
conventional writing system, spelling discrepancies are, unsurprisingly, common
and its glottal sounds have led to the production of an incredibly unique
written form in modern times. Filled with heavy vowels and multiple commas,
Quechan words are usually extremely long and overwhelming to visitors to the
country, such as napaykullayki
meaning “hello” or tupananchiskama
meaning “goodbye.”

As for the Aymara
language, it is principally spoken today around the Lake Titicaca area, where
the Lamanites, written about in the Book of Mormon, were most heavily
concentrated from about 200 B.C. to about 350 A.D. It is also spoken in
southern Peru and northern Chile and northwest Argentina, which is merely an
extension of the area around Titicaca. While disputed (what isn’t disputed
about ancient languages?), many linguists consider Aymara related to Quechua,
others consider the closeness of the two languages to be from areal features
(meaning its similarities are from diffusion rather than genetic relation,
i.e., common ancestor language)—but all agree the two are closely related. In
fact, in Rodolfo Cerron-Palomino in his Linguistica
Airmara, shows a very firm connection between Quechua and Aymara (Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos "Bartolomé de
las Casas", Lima, 2000, pp 34-6).In
addition, both Quechua and Aymara have been spoken in the area around Titicaca
to the north, including Cuzco where, in the time of the Nephites, both Nephites
and later Lamanites occupied the area (City of Nephi area). Today, as an
example both languages are officially spoken, with 41% speaking Quechua, and
30% speaking Aymara in this area. Comment
#2: “You did point out that "and
of" is a Hebrew carryover, so it's certainly conceivable that Nephi simply
wrote a Hebrew word that is translated into English as "both" but in
Hebrew usage simply denotes a list of any length” Wonder Boy.Response: The word
“of” is “shel” which in English means
“it belongs to” i.e., in a list, it is one after the other, but always listed
in the repeated form in Hebrew: “and of
gold, and of silver, and of copper, as opposed to English, which would simply
state: “and gold, and silver, and copper” or “gold, silver, and copper.” In
Hebrew, it is never listed as it is in English, but each noun or object follows
“and of” as the word “veshel” means
and is interpreted. Thus, in Hebrew anciently, it would be written “veshel zahav, veshel keseph, veshel nechash.”Comment #3: “Subject and verb: We did find...(What?)
Direct object...all manner...(manner of what?) Insertional Prepositional phrase
adjective:...of ore...Notice the direct object and prepositional object
agreement manner/ore. It's not mannerS/ore, manner/oreS or mannerS/oreS. It's
singular, manner/ore. However, with the modifier 'all' it becomes plural, and
hence the list refers back to *manner* and NOT ore” Wonder Boy.Response: One more time. Since the word “both” NEVER refers
to more than two, list or otherwise, and ALWAYS refers to a combination of two
things, two people, two kinds, two combinations, etc., we are looking at: “all
manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.” The subject is
clear: both refers to one kind and another kind, and with these three items,
two are precious ores, the other is not.

Nephi
wrote: “both old and young, both male and female” (1 Nephi 8:27), and also
wrote: “both men, women, and children” (2 Nephi 9:21). In both cases, there are
two types to go along with “both”

In the list before that, Nephi writes: “there
were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass
and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals,”
you can say that “both” refers to cow and ox, and to ass and horse, and to goat
and wild goat, with “and all manner of wild animals” unrelated to the first
part of that list following “both.” Or, you can say, “both” 1) cow and ox, ass
and horse, goat and wild goat” as domestic or domesticable animals, and 2) all
manner of wild animals. The wild goat, by the way, is a domesticable animal since the
type of wild goats found in the Americas are “ferel” goats, i.e., they were
once domesticated and left (or escaped) to run wild. Truly wild animals,
on the other hand, are not domesticable and dangerous to be around. They are
for the most part carnivorous, generally will attack humans, and can rarely be
tamed or domesticated, such as lions, tigers, cougars, jaguars, mountain lions,
puma, etc. Animals like horses can be wild and in a wild state, can be
dangerous, but they, like many wild animals, do not generally attack humans
unless cornered or extremely provoked.Comment #4: “In fact, I think there is good reason to think
of these three ores as constituting a list rather than a single ore- and that
is the antecedent to "gold, silver and copper." They probably refer
back to the simple direct object "manner" and not the object of the
proposition "ore” Wonder Boy.

Response: It really doesn’t matter what any of us think
about this. Grammar rules set by the "Grammar Police" do not allow for three or
more items to follow the word “both” unless they can in some natural way be
grouped into two parts, kinds, objects, etc. You might be interested to know that because there are so many grammar mistakes made today (poorer English teaching in school) that The Elements of Style is on its fourth edition.

1 comment:

Del, I believe the ancient Jaradites did speak Hebrew but the language obviously became corrupted over the centuries. The ancient patriarchs spoke Hebrew. I mentioned this before and I can prove that Adam spoke Hebrew. That is the language of scripture and that is Adamic language. I had a friend that was a Jewish Rabbi. He told me years ago that Hebrew is the language of God and it was used to create the earth. There are other proofs as well. One is found in the temple but I won't discuss that one.

But my point is the Jaradites spoke Hebrew because they came to South America shortly after the flood and were close descendants of the patriarchs. Ira